Archive

Posts Tagged ‘history’

Possible Medical Explanation for Joe Biden’s Obvious Cognitive Decline

August 11, 2019 3 comments

If you have watched more than a couple of Joe Biden’s recent public appearances where he had to speak extemporaneously, you might have noticed something peculiar. He often rambles about a topic without focus and also says stuff that highlights his inability to properly recall recent events. While everyone of us, regardless of age, will occasionally talk like that- Biden’s recent behavior is odd because it is far more frequently than would be the case for an otherwise healthy person of his age, especially one who has spent his life as a public figure. Compare him to Bernie Sanders, who is an year or two older than him, but still very sharp and in command of the facts. So this is not just about Biden’s age, something which becomes more obvious as we look deeper.

Compare his public speaking ability in 2019 to 2008 or even 2012. Go ahead and watch the entire vice-presidential debates from 2012 where he performs very well against Paul Ryan. Or watch his earlier speeches, debates or townhalls. My point is that Joe Biden was verbally adept (albeit ‘politically incorrect’) and mentally sharp for decades, even if he occasionally flubbed up things. Now see how he performed during the first two DNC debates and at numerous recent events since (link 1, link 2, link 3). Saying that poor kids are just as bright as white kids before hastily correcting himself, confusing Theresa May with Margaret Thatcher and claiming that he was VP during the Parkland school shooting in 2018 in spontaneous speeches during the past few days, combined with his performance during those debates is hard to dismiss as simple gaffes.

While I am no fan of diagnosing illness without properly examining a patient in person, there is a a plausible explanation for Joe Biden recently obvious cognitive decline. To understand what I am getting at, we have to first talk about an interesting but little known aspect of his medical history. In 1988, Joe Biden had surgery to treat a couple of aneurysms in his brain. The surgeries were apparently successful and after a 7-month absence from public life, he was back to normal and has had no more large aneurysms since then. All of this is good.. but have you ever wondered what causes cerebral or intra-cranial aneurysms? The short answer is that most are caused by certain cardiovascular conditions (hypertension, smoking, cocaine use etc) or they are genetic in nature. But a decent number of them are idiopathic aka without any apparent cause.

Regardless of the cause, the general mechanism of aneurysm formation in blood vessels is fairly similar and involves a section of some artery or arteriole becoming mechanically weaker than its neighbor because the underlying vascular wall is not being properly maintained by the body’s repair system. These weak segments usually develop in parts experiencing especially high blood pressure, near bifurcation points, within tight loops etc. The key point is that people who have one aneurysm have a significantly higher risk of getting another one, even if it is smaller. Emilia Clarke from ‘Game of Thrones’ suffered something like this years ago when she was in her 20s. To be clear, I am not claiming that Joe Biden has a large aneurysm in his brain right now.

What I am suggesting is a bit different. See.. people with one or more brain aneurysm, even after successful treatment, are at a significantly higher risk for microaneurysms, small subarachnoid bleeds and often have other cerebrovascular issues as they age. And this where things start get interesting or bad. The way your body reacts to small internal injuries and bleeds changes as you age. In the brain, even small and asymptomatic but repeated bleeds in old age leads to the increase in levels of soluble beta-amyloid and hyperphosphorylation of tau protein in neurons, which are calling cards of Alzheimer’s-type brain damage. The thing is.. most cases of Alzheimer’s display mixed vascular and neuronal pathology and there is tons of evidence that those processes feed into each other. Most cases of dementia in people over 75 are of the mixed type.

It is therefore likely that Biden is displaying symptoms of cerebrovascular dysfunction with a bit of classical Alzheimer’s type pathology. To reiterate, this is not unique to him, as those who have experienced mechanical cerebrovascular trauma (bad car accidents, aneurysms and other head injuries)when they were young or middle-aged have a significantly higher risk of senile dementia or impaired cerebrovascular function as they reach their 70s and beyond. In fact the same is true for any other organs or parts of the human body, from kidneys to bone joints, where damage or trauma in youth can often manifest itself as significantly reduced function in old age- even if the initial damage was treated and healed satisfactorily.

But why does any of this matter? Isn’t Trump not much better and probably on Adderall? Well.. here is why. At this moment, Biden is still the front-runner among those seeking the democratic party nomination for 2020 and older black primary voters are solidly behind a guy whose actions ruined the lives of their children and grandchildren, by the millions. At this moment, his handlers are shielding him from unscripted appearances and keeping his public exposure to a minimum. However keeping him away from unscripted appearances is going to become increasingly harder as we near the real campaign and election day. While other democratic contenders have, so far, not made his cognitive decline an issue- it is going to come out, one way or the other.

To make matters worse, if Biden ends up as the presidential nominee of democratic party, Trump is going to make his cognitive decline an issue for rest of the campaign. Between his obvious cognitive decline, inability of democarts to motivate voters beyond their base and sad obsession with ‘gun control’, it is likely we might see a repeat of 2016- where Trump loses the popular vote by somewhere between 3 and 5 million but ends up winning the electoral college and thus gets reelected. The question, then, is how do we avoid that outcome. In my opinion, Biden in 2020 is the equivalent of HRC in 2016, but with far more disastrous consequences.

What do you think? Comments?

Why Risk of Autism is Such a Strong Driver for Anti-Vaxxer Movement

June 22, 2019 9 comments

As regular readers know, I have written posts about why the modern anti-vaccination movement exists in the first place. It seems that most people, especially those indulge in gratuitous virtue display on social-media, want to attribute it all to parental ignorance, gullibility or stupidity. These dummies are intent on doing so even though the socio-economic and educational profile of those involved in the movement clearly suggests that is not the case. As I mentioned in my previous posts, the anti-vaccination movement is one outcome of a medical system driven by profits.. and let us not pretend that physicians are altruistic people solely driven by a burning need to help others. Also, let us stop pretending that the medical profession still retains the kind of public trust it used to enjoy 2-4 decades ago. It doesn’t and for good reason.

A few months ago, I started writing a short series on why persecution of anti-vaxxers will backfire on believers of scientism. While I intend to, hopefully soon, write more parts for that series- I am going to digress a bit in this post and talk about the twin concerns which seem to be driving the modern anti-vaccination movement. Ana as you will soon see, there is a specific reason behind my decision to not roll this post into the second part of that series. A couple of days ago, I came across a long-form journalism piece in Jezebel (of all places) about the anti-vaxxer movement. In that piece, and in responses to it on social media sites, I noticed a pattern which many (including the author of that piece) were unable or unwilling to notice. To make a long story short, many hip and trendy virtue posers seems to be oblivious to why the risk of autism and auto-immune illnesses is such a potent driver behind the anti-vaxxer movement- especially in USA.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that vaccines causes autism. What I am talking about is much more nuanced and it is recommended that you read the post completely before commenting. So let us begin by talking about Autism or more precisely the history of that diagnosis. In previous eras, children and adults who display symptoms or behavior which are today considered to be part of Autism Spectrum Disorder were considered as “retarded”, “special”,”different,”feeble-minded”, “quirky” etc depending on the nature and degree of their condition. For almost all of human history, such kids and adults were generally treated with varying degrees of compassion and patience. It also helped that prior to age of capitalism, extended social safety nets were able to accommodate and take care of such people. Large-scale institutionalization of such people began only after the mid-1800s and even then only in the allegedly civilized “west”.

My point is that, for almost all of human history, people with what we today lump under the label of autism were not seen as ill or suffering from a disease. They were merely seen as a bit to somewhat different from normal people. I cannot resist the irony of pointing out that people from previous eras actually had a far more humane outlook towards people with such conditions. So how did the label of ASD and rapid increase in its reported incidence come about? Well.. after 1960s, it became basically impossible in the west to institutionalize people with mental conditions or psychiatric diseases. However, unlike serious depression or schizophrenia etc, what we today classify under rubric of ASD wasn’t an illnesses in the traditional sense of that word. To put it another way, there is no consistent neuro-chemical or neuro-anatomical abnormality in everyone (or most people) diagnosed with ASD. Also, you cannot treat it with drugs- at least consistently.

So why does any of this matter? Well.. see, once you classify something as a disease, it has to have a cause. In other words, people started trying to find the cause of what we today know as ASD only after it was reclassified as a disease. It certainly did not help that ASD covers a range of conditions from borderline aspyness to full-blown inability to learn and interact with people. To make another long story short, we still have not been able to develop a robust hypothesis for why some people end up being diagnosed with ASD. While there is is clearly a hereditary competent to these conditions, only 15-20 % of the siblings (at most) of such people also display signs of ASD. In other words, even your hair or eye color exhibits far greater levels of inheritability than ASD. The subtext here is that ASD appears to more developmental than inherited.

Let us now talk about the incidence of diagnosed ASD in the west, specifically USA. According to the CDC, 1 in 59 kids end up being diagnosed with ASD. We can easily round up that number to 1 in 50 or 2%. To make matters worse, about 14% of kids have special educational requirements with almost a third of that being due to learning disabilities. Which is a nice way of saying that about 5% or 1 in 20 kids have learning disabilities severe enough to require intervention and special attention. Did I mention that most people who have children nowadays have only one or two. Are you now starting to see why people are so concerned about anything which might raise the risk of their getting ASD? But it gets worse, much worse, in USA.

Unlike all other developed countries with some form of universal healthcare and long-term illness/ disability support system- USA has nothing even remotely approaching universal healthcare let lone a social safety net for chronically ill or disabled people. To make yet another long (and sordid) story short, the considerable and artificially inflated expenses of caring for a child with moderate to severe ASD can ruin even solidly middle-class families. It is therefore not surprising that parents in USA (and other “western” countries with mediocre profit-driven healthcare systems) are especially vigilant about anything which might potentially increase their child’s risk of developing ASD. It does not help that the rapid increase in ASD coincided with the expansion of childhood vaccination schedule to Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox etc.

It also does not help that usually transient neurological disorders are known to be associated with whole-cell pertussis vaccine. Are you beginning to understand why the anti-vaxxer movement has kept gaining strength, especially in USA? But.. but.. some of you might say “what about the common good” or “maintaining herd immunity”? My answer is as follows: you cannot expect people to care about the greater good of a society which, in turn, ignores (or worse, monetizes) the suffering of disabled or chronically-ill people. Does society in USA make sure that caring for a child with ASD does not pauperize his or her parents? If it doesn’t, don’t expect the affected parents or others around them to play ball. Pretending that their concerns are not genuine or they are stupid is also not likely to get them on your side.

One more thing, pretending that measles or chickenpox are life-threatening in otherwise healthy and incompetent children is not a smart idea and likely to reduce your credibility even further. While both illnesses can put a very small percentage of affected children in the hospital, death or permanent disability from either disease is pretty rare- easily less than 1 in 500 and usually far lower. More importantly, a lot of anti-vaxxer parents (especially in USA) would rather take their chances with a 1 in 500 to 1 in 4000 chance of death than feel guilty about their child developing Autism or learning disorders (2-5%) around the same time as being vaccinated. This is doubly so if they know anybody with a child who first started showing signs of ASD around the same time they were being vaccinated.

Yes.. I know that the first signs of ASD often appear at about the same time as kids getting their routine vaccinations- even if they are not getting vaccinated. But I am not a parent, nor have I been ever at risk of becoming bankrupt caring for a child with ASD. If you ever want to reach these people, you will have to start understanding that their risk assessments are as rational as your own. Bullying, mocking or patronizing them is just going to ensure that some greedy charlatans are going to take advantage of their vulnerability. Then again, most ardent pro-vaxxers are just in it for the virtue display and feeling superior. Here is a novel idea.. make sure that everyone has comprehensive universal healthcare and people with disabilities and chronic illness are well cared for and not exploited for financial gains.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 2

April 2, 2019 25 comments

In the previous post of this series, I wrote about how feminism started and thrives in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire for maintaining racial purity- which is another way of saying that feminism (as we know it today) has always been strongly associated with, and grown out of, colonialism and racism. I first noticed this connection almost two decades ago due to an interesting combination of circumstances. As some readers might know, that is when I moved here to do graduate school. Anyway.. since scientific research is a multi-national endeavor, I quickly noticed an interesting pattern namely, that the willingness of a guy to debase himself for women was not universal- even among white men.

For example- it was unusual to see men of eastern European or Mediterranean origins fawning over women (even attractive ones) at anywhere near the levels displayed by ‘local’ men for borderline ugly women. And let us be clear about something, science does not attract ‘alpha’ men- but even there the difference between those from Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries vs rest of Europe and the World was very obvious. I also noticed something else which, at first, was peculiar. Local men in these now-declining Anglo-Saxon (A-S) countries do not ascribe agency to women, or do so in an unusual manner. Now, let me explain that sentence in some detail. See.. men from most countries around the world see women as being capable of making their own decisions- whether those turn out to be good, bad, sad or just plain stupid.

However men from A-S counties are desperate to rationalize any bad, sad or stupid decision made by a woman as not her decision. These men always ascribe external agency to a woman’s bad decisions while always invoking her own agency to explain the good ones. In other words, every stupid, bad and self-destructive decision made by a white woman is not her fault, while every OK decision is proof of her competence. Some of you might say that this is further proof of feminism brainwashing those men. I, however, disagree. The whole trope of “women are always right and never responsible for bad decisions” has a much longer history in A-S countries than feminism. In fact, the idea that white women (but not black or brown women) are not responsible for their bad decisions can be found in English literature as far back as mid 1800s, decades before feminism was even a thing. In other words, it preceded feminism.

Don’t believe me? Read a few novel, novellas and short stories from that period- especially those which also contain non-white female characters. You will quickly see that white women are always portrayed as pure, kind and good while non-white women are shown as evil, conniving and animalistic. Contrast this to the depiction of women in the mythology and folklore of other cultures. Were women depicted as always good in ancient Greek or Roman mythology, folklore or literature? What about Chinese, Japanese or Korean mythology and folklore? What about Indian or middle-eastern mythology and folklore? Heck.. even continental European folklore and stories, such as the Brothers Grimm collection did not depict women as inherently good. My point is that most cultures throughout human history never saw women as inherently pure, good, faultless etc. But after early 1800s this became the default view in A-S and later Scandinavian countries.

But what does this have to do with the world of 2019- at least as it exists in A-S countries? Well.. let me ask you another set of questions- would laws favoring women in divorce and child-custody etc exist without a large number of white men stupid enough to willingly believe and support hilarious myths such as the inherent “purity”, “goodness”, “desirability” etc of white women? Would all that talk about how women make less than men and deserve affirmative action exist without a large percentage of white men (in those countries) willing to believe in the myth of white women being inherently deserving and virtuous? And why is the myth that all men are sexual deviants with an interest in children almost exclusive to A-S and Scandinavian countries.

Conversely, why are men from other parts of the world far more willing to acknowledge that gold-digging and other forms of parasitic behavior is common among women? Why are they also far more willing to acknowledge that women can be as screwed up in the head as men- and often more so. Why are they far less inclined to obsessively seek female approval for their behavior and decisions? Are you starting to see a trend? In case you aren’t, let me spell it out for you- a lot of the behavioral patterns displayed by white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries are older than feminism, though they do arise from the same toxic pond of colonialism and racism. It is these patterns which enabled and supported the rise of feminism in those countries.

A lot of behavior displayed by men in these countries, traditionally ascribed to evolutionary psychology bullshit such as eggs being more expensive than sperm, is in reality largely restricted to those countries. The thing is.. outside of these countries, the world is a very different place. This is not say that other countries do not have legal equality of the sexes. Indeed, one can argue than east-European communist countries had far more real sexual equality than A-S countries. However this equality never led to university departments of women studies, atrocious divorce and child-custody laws, hordes of SJWs, constant empty talk of “empowerment” and men being seen as innate sexual predators. Any you why.. because those countries did not have the pre-existing legacy of colonialism-derived racism.

In the next part of this series, I will write about why most white men in A-S and Scandinavian countries still willingly and diligently keep polishing the turd of white women supremacy aka feminism.

What do you think? Comments?

On the Peculiar Connection between Systemic Racism and Feminism: 1

March 21, 2019 31 comments

Regular readers know that I have written many posts about the intersection of racism and dating. In fact, that is why entire series such as Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage, Escorts are a better deal than ‘real’ women and How to Use Escorts exist in the first place. But what does any of this have to do with the intersection between racism and feminism? Well.. for starters, systemic racism by women in western countries is the main reason behind their vastly differing rates of having “unpaid” sex with men of various racial groups. However, as you will soon see, it goes much further than that and in ways you probably never appreciated. Let me start by asking you a simple question: Why is Feminism as we understand it today, in all its forms, largely restricted to Anglo, and perhaps Scandinavian, countries. Odd, isn’t it?

At this point, some of you might try to counter my suggestion that feminism is largely an Anglo and Scandinavian phenomena by pointing out that almost every single country in the world seems to, nowadays, have equal legal rights for men and women. And I do not disagree that the majority of countries today do have laws and, in many cases socio-economic systems, which do a good or at least decent job of treating men and women equally. Notice something peculiar about the wording of previous two sentences? See.. ensuring legal equality of the sexes is not the same as feminism- which is really about white women gaining primacy over all other men. While feminism did come into existence, as a movement, to ostensibly ensure that women were legally equal to men- that was never its initial nor ultimate goal.

Instead, feminism in Anglo countries started a project to gain primacy for rich and bourgeoisie white women. Don’t believe me? Did you know that luminaries of the suffragette movement were super racist white women? Also this fact is really well known in addition to causing a host of practical problems in the past. But it gets worse, if you can believe it. White suffragettes were into stuff like eugenics and forced sterilization, seriously racist views about black and asian men and a whole lot of other stuff which would get them labelled as a hate group today. All of this does however bring us to the next logical question: Why were Anglo, and to a lesser extent Scandinavian countries, such hotspots for Feminism? Why were other European countries full of equally racist losers, such as Germany or Italy, never that much into Feminism?

To better understand what I am going to talk about, let me ask you another seemingly unrelated question. How many male admirers will post comments on Instagram shots of an attractive woman in a thong bikini if she was from Germany, Spain, Brazil versus if she was from USA or UK? In my experience, there are between 10-40 times more positive comments from guys if the women in question is from Anglo countries than if she was from non-Anglo countries. And this has nothing to do with the degree of Instagram use in those countries. You can see the same pattern on social media networks more popular in non-Anglo countries than their Anglo counterparts. Leaving worshipful comments in response to photos of attractive women is just not that common outside the Anglosphere. But why is that so? What is going on?

Here is something else to think about.. Say a woman accuses some guy of date rape (a he said, she said situation). What percentage of men not related to the accuser will unconditionally believe her story in countries such as Germany, France and Italy versus USA? Why is it far higher in USA than in non-Anglo countries? What makes men in Anglo countries far more willing and eager to go along with any bullshit a white woman will say as compared to their counterparts in other (still) white-majority countries? Note that women in developed non-Anglo countries are no more (often less) likely to be suffer violence than their counterparts in Anglo countries. Nor are women in those countries likely to be poorer, unhealthier or worse off than their counterparts in Anglo countries- in fact, the converse is more likely. Once again, what is going on?

Then there is the issue of sex, both paid and “unpaid”. Why are white women in non-Anglo countries more likely to have a sexual relationship (than Anglo women) with a non-white guy, given the opportunity? Why are escorts born outside USA, or are early second-generation types from non-Anglo countries widely recognized as far more reasonable and generally way more fun than their Anglo counterparts? Why do people like RooshV and Matt Forney keep saying that women outside North America are far better than those within it? Why are the laws surrounding prostitution in some Anglo countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada more reasonable than those in USA or UK? And what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post?

In case you have not noticed the trend, let me state it explicitly. Male support for feminism in western countries correlates quite well with the size of empire it has or had and whether it was a society based in racial-apartheid (USA). That is why Feminism always has, and had, a far bigger presence in countries such as UK and USA than others such as Italy, Germany or even France. This is also why Feminism, SJW-ism and other white women-first movements are bigger in USA and UK than ex-colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand- who seem to largely copy whatever occurs in USA. Now you know why otherwise rich western countries such as Netherlands and Switzerland have far fewer vocal feminist activists or public support for such ideas than countries like UK and USA. But why would the size of ex-colonial empires or erstwhile global influence create fertile grounds for Feminism?

It all comes down to the myths which people, who get lucky, have to invent to justify their newly found fortune. In the case of UK, its success at gaining overseas territory during the 19th century was largely due to factors beyond its own control. Whether it was the slow decline of French imperial ambitions after Napoleon or being present at the time of large-scale internal civil strife in countries such as India and China- they just got lucky. But human being do not like to admit (especially to themselves) that they owe their fortunes to luck. Hence the need to believe that they were, as a race, somehow inherently superior. You can see where this is going.. Also, the empire was mostly staffed by young men who lived in lands with very few white women. That is why inter-racial marriage was pretty common in many older colonies until the early 1800s. However this changed once the British empire started consolidating.

Placing white women on a pedestal makes sense only if it somehow translates into maintaining racial purity. Colonialism lead to the need for maintaining racial hierarchy and hence purity which lead to pedestalling white women which then lead to Feminism. And that is why a lot of early Feminism were rich racist white women who came from either the ruling or bourgeoisie class. This is also why most pre-1960s Feminists had an obsession with maintaining racial purity and the status quo. Let us now turn to USA aka the country built on theft of land from its original inhabitants, their subsequent genocide and wealth created through race-based slavery. While the USA was not, technically, an extra-territorial empire until the 1890s- this had much to do with it being not necessary. Westward expansion until early 20th century was just way easier.

As far as Scandinavian countries are concerned, things took a different route. While they gave up the idea of competing with UK, France and Spain for overseas colonies quite early, they benefited greatly from supporting colonialism through involvement in commercial activity in colonies and the process of colonization. So ya.. that is why systemic racism and Feminism have, historically, been joined at the hip. Feminism can only thrive in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire of maintaining racial purity. There is, of course, more to this story than Feminism being the end-product of delusions about intrinsic racial superiority. Will explain more in an upcoming post.

What do you think? Comments?

Understanding the Real History Behind ‘Wolfenstein’ Video Game Series

January 28, 2019 7 comments

Almost anybody who has played video games, with some regularity, over the past two decades has gone through at least one release in the long-running ‘Wolfenstein‘ game series. My personal favorites in that series are Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Wolfenstein: The New Order. Perhaps some of you might be aware that the overall plot and environment of most games in that series is based in a somewhat fanciful extrapolation of reality. While nobody is claiming that reanimated mummies, the raised undead or fire zombies are real, a lot of what is found in the most popular releases of that series (specifically Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein: The New Order and Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus) are based in real events, facts, persons and possibilities.

For example, one of the central elements of ‘Return to Castle Wolfenstein’ involves the player trying to stop attempts by Nazis (especially Heinrich Himmler) from resurrecting ‘Heinrich the Fowler‘- who also happens to be final boss of that game. It just so happens that Himmler was deeply into a lot of mystical BS and had a peculiar obsession with that particular Saxon king from 10th century AD. Similarly one of the mini-bosses in that game, Marianna Blavatsky, is a sendup of Helena Blavatsky– a real life “psychic” medium from late 19th century whose teachings had a major (if unintentional) influence of development of the belief system behind certain parts of Nazi ideology. In fact, here is a post which talks about some of this from 2006.

Himmler, when he was not planning mass murder, was into a lot of mystical stuff. For example, he was a big supporter of pre-ww2 expeditions into Tibet and other “archaeological” projects to establish the veracity of his beliefs. He was also a big supporter of what is now called ‘Nazi archaeology‘. It is also true that many senior scientists and engineers in that regime found Himmler’s forays into mysticism amusing, to put if mildly, but never confronted him publicly because of his position. Did I mention that Castle Wolfenstein is based on Castle Wewelsburg, though its location is influenced by that of Kehlsteinhaus. Furthermore, many of the advanced weapon systems depicted in the 2001 game are based in reality.

Similarly, later releases of that game such as ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’ (2014) are based on pretty decent extrapolations of what might have happened if funny-mustache guy and his flunkies had been more competent. While we are unlikely to have seen giant robots driven by brains or super laser guns- the game does a pretty good job of capturing the type of society and world which would have resulted from Nazi Germany wining WW2 or achieving a stalemate that was equivalent to victory. In that respect they do a much better job at writing believable alternate history than ‘The Man in the High Castle‘ series by Amazon.

Now let me ask you a question.. Have you ever wondered about the convergence of personalities, zeitgeist and events which ultimately led to the Nazi Ideology? As it turns out the answer is not straightforward and it all starts about 50 years before they came to power. To make a very long story short, the original impetus for popularity of mystical beliefs which would one day become Nazism started out as a reaction to socio-economic displacement caused by Industrial revolution in Germany. The initial popularizers of those ideas, such as the Helena Blavatsky, were probably into it to become famous and make a few bucks. In fact, this moment should be seen as German equivalent of the spiritualism craze that swept Britain between the 1870s-1930s.

Racism and belief in Eugenics were also not unique to Germany, during that era. Some of you might know that Nazi Germany got a lot of its ideas about Race and Eugenics from USA. Social Darwinism, too, had its roots in Britain and USA. Which brings us to the next question- Why did Nazism develop in 1920-145 era Germany and not.. say.. in USA or Britain? The answer to that question requires us to understand something important and relevant, even today.The precursor to Nazi regime, aka the Wiemar republic, was fine with then contemporary levels of racism, anti-semitism, eugenics etc. But they slowly lost, over a period of over ten years, all of their credibility with most people in that country. Also the rich in Germany preferred fascists over socialists.

And that is how funny-mustache guy and his flunkies got in power. It certainly helped that were able to combine all those new-ish currents of belief and ideology into a somewhat coherent ideology. While a lot of videos on YT suffer from YouTube face, overenthusiastic presenters and poorly researched bits by idiots with a British accent, some are better. So here are two long clips (unfortunately containing poor quality footage) which do a very good and objective job of explaining how various streams of Nazi ideology combined into their final form. They are a bit on the longish side, but totally worth the time.

Clip 1 (about 51 minutes long)

Clip 2 (about 54 minutes long)

What do you think? Comments?

On Moves to Brand Masculinity of Men in West as ‘Toxic’: Nov 26, 2017

November 26, 2017 29 comments

Many readers of my blog might have noticed a recent rash of articles, in both traditional and online media, about how masculinity is somehow inherently ‘toxic’. In case you haven’t seen them, here is very short list of these hilarious opinion pieces: Funny Link 1, Funny Link 2 and Funny Link 3. I am sure that most have also seen links to other similar and equally hilarious write-ups on that topic in their FaceBook and Twitter newsfeeds. But poking fun at unintentionally comic articles is not the main focus of this post, though many are highly entertaining to read.

Let me, instead, begin by asking you a simple question: since when has masculinity been seen as ‘toxic’ in western countries? Most of you might select a time between say.. 1968 to sometime within the last few years. However, as I shall shortly demonstrate, those dates and the thinking behind selecting them is not based in reality. Masculinity, you see, has always been toxic in the ‘west’ as long as it was the masculinity of non-white men. In case you don’t believe it, have a look at the disproportionate number of black men lynched for alleged sexual ‘crimes’ against white women in the pre-WW2 USA. Or look at how the behavior (sexual and otherwise) of black men is viewed and treated in USA.

You could also look at how the sexuality of men from other non-white groups has been traditionally depicted in books, films, TV shows and other forms of popular entertainment. I mean.. can you think of even one semi-well known film or TV show that depicts east-Asian men as attractive or desirable? What about non-white Mexican men? Or what about men of Indian descent? I can reel of a list of characters within american popular media based around negative stereotypes of non-white men. Somehow, all of these negative stereotypes which border on dehumanization and demonization never caused anything more than a few polite disagreements… because, doing so was considered perfectly acceptable for the previous and now rapidly waning majority- especially white men.

But reality, you see, often displays a sense of bitter irony. Many of the same tropes used to dehumanize non-white men and demonize their sexuality have in recent years been turned at full blast towards white men. Then again, attempts to nurture proverbial poisonous snakes in the hopes that they will bite only ‘other’ people always ends the same way. This process is also generally similar to how western attempts to create civil and ethnic strife in other countries ultimately cause the same within their own borders. Or how the ‘War on Terror’ in other countries becomes the incarceration-surveillance state for those idiots who supported the former. Or how welfare, free trade and free-market “reforms” meant to hurt black people have now fucked over lots of white people too.

Some of you might say that what I written until now is too non-specific. I mean.. which tropes am I talking about? and how do they apply to the current situation?

So here it goes. Consider how ‘non-alpha’ white men (aka the majority) risk getting accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape if the women in question either does not find them attractive, thinks they are “creepy” or has regrets after the fact. That particular type of demonizing male sexuality in USA started with black men- for reasons that are too obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of american history. As some of you know, talking and flirting with white women and having sex with them resulted in black men being accused of identical ‘crimes’- even if nothing non-consensual had occurred. The fact that most white men are now treated that way is both funny and richly deserved.

Or consider how mere accusations of sexual impropriety are now enough to destroy careers of white men. Or how white women are supposed to be always truthful when they make such accusations. Both tropes trace their origins to what occurred to black and other non-white men in previous eras. It is darkly funny to watch most white men get railroaded the same way as they once did to others. It is also hard to feel sympathy for those who cheered on and participated in such mob behavior under the mistaken belief that they would be never affected by such injustices. I mean.. if public trials based on one-sided accounts were ok when the accused were non-white men, what is wrong with continuing that ‘tradition’ when the accused are white men?

Then there is the issue of many white men now being seen as less than worthy for having sex with women. And once again, this is the extension of a trope which was previously applied to non-white men (especially east-Asian and Indian). Of course, almost everybody else in the ‘west’ was perfectly fine when the men not deemed worthy of having female sexual partners were non-white. As it turns out, that trope also spread far beyond the groups it was originally meant to marginalize. And that is why it is amusing to watch all those mediocre (white) men complaining about being treated as undesirable and less-than-human by white women. Then again, thinking beyond the short-term is rather uncommon in human beings- irrespective of race and ethnicity.

What do you think? Comments?

USA Lacks Realistic Strategy Towards DPRKs Nuclear ICBM Program: 1

September 24, 2017 57 comments

Let me begin this post by posing a fairly straightforward question: Is the current strategy of USA, Japan and South Korea towards the nuclear and missile programs of DPRK (let alone the government of that country) based in reality? You might have already figured out that my short version of the answer is a big “NO”.

One of my previous post on this general topic did explore how racism and magical thinking have historically shaped american policy towards DPRK. It largely focuses on how we reached this point and why miscalculations due to lazy thinking could have very serious effects on destinies of multiple countries involved in the current standoff.

But coming back to the topic at hand, let us talk about the bunch of delusions that pass for american “strategy” towards the nuclear and missile program of DPRK. I will also talk about how the delusional policies of USA reinforce the equally nutty policies of Japan and South Korea on those issues.

The official stance of USA is that it will not negotiate with DPRK unless the later agrees to give up its nuclear weapons and missiles. Now, even a half-sensible person will immediately recognize that DPRK is simply not going to give up its most cost-effective insurance policies against armed invasion or “color revolution” by USA and its allies.

Moreover, the history of interactions between DPRK and USA- specifically the unsuccessful american attempt to kill all north Koreans during the Korean war in the early 1950s and the unwillingness of USA to fulfill its end of the 1994 nuclear agreement, make it almost impossible for them to trust the USA.

It is also important to understand that DPRKs relations with China and Russia have, over the years, had their own ups and downs. This is why regime in Pyongyang has always been so obsessed with self-reliance and self-sufficiency. The concept of Juche is much more than a simple feel good slogan for them.

So now let us talk about how the USA and its east-asian allies have responded to DPRKs nuclear and missile program since 2006, when it conducted its first nuclear test. But first a little relevant history..

In late-1994, DPRK agreed to freeze its nuclear weapon program in exchange for urgently needed fuel oil, two somewhat ‘proliferation-resistant’ nuclear reactors and future normalization of political and economic relations and a future guarantee that USA would not attack DPRK or attempt regime change in Pyongyang.

However, USA was never serious about sticking to its end of the so-called “Agreed Framework” and after 3-4 years, it became obvious that they were trying take DPRK for a ride. In response, DPRK slowly but surely went about restarting its nuclear weapon program. Long story short.. by early 2002, that agreement was dead when Bush43 officially labelled DPRK as part of the “axis of evil”.

The most important lesson DPRK learned from this episode can be stated as follows: Any agreement with USA is not worth the piece of paper it is written on unless you have the ability to credibly threaten them with nuclear weapons for breaking the agreement. I would go so far as to say that after January 2002, it became virtually impossible for DPRK to ever give up nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them.

Sure.. there were a few attempts after 2002 to restart talks on that or similar agreements, but it was obvious to external observers they were not destined (or even meant) to succeed. However the biggest change in DPRKs policy in both areas came after Kim Jong-un replaced his father, Kim Jong-il. But why would that be so? Why would the son take a far more aggressive stand on these issues than his father?

I believe that it comes down to the era in which they grew up. Both Kim Jong-un’s father and grandfather grew up in an era where white people from predominantly white countries lorded over the world and appeared invincible. He however grew up in an era and environment where he was able to see that white people from predominantly white countries were no smarter, competent or better than somebody like him.

Unlike his father and grandfather, he came of age in an era where the ‘west’ is in terminal decline. He also saw that non-white countries around the world, including neighboring China, were taking the ‘west’ to the cleaners. It is therefore not surprising that after taking over from his father, he decided to pour a lot of personal and resources into the nuclear and missile program.

Interestingly, he did the same for the civilian sectors of DPRK- which suggests that he has a pretty clear plan of action. However western “experts” spend all their time hyping up questionable accounts of his treatment of people who fell out of his favor and masturbate themselves to thoughts of him being a stupid and ego-driven person, when all objective evidence shows him to be a competent, if ruthless, leader.

That is not to say that he is a great human being, but then again Eisenhower was responsible for the death of over 3 million civilians in Korea, Nixon for 3-5 million in Cambodia and Vietnam and Bush43 for about 1 million in Iraq and Afghanistan. My point is that he is no better, or worse, than any generic american president.

In the upcoming post of this series, I will explore how the unwillingness of establishment in USA to confront the fact that they are living in 2017 rather than 1994 is making them do really stupid and useless things which are diminishing their credibility in other countries. I will also talk about how the policies of Japan and South Korea towards DPRK are also based in a strange combination of delusion and make-believe.

What do you think? Comments?